Summaries as implemented cannot be aggregated in a meaningful
way. Partitoning them by status code and method only made sense if we
were interested in the individual latency and size of e.g. GET request
that result in status 503. In general, that's not the case. Most of
the time, the user will be interested in the latency and size of _all_
HTTP requests.
(With future changes to client_golang, we will consider making the
HTTP instrumentation configurable, e.g. to handle the case where the
user is only interested in the latency of successful requests.)
Also, remove quotes from the Content-type header. It's not illegal to
have quotes there, but they are not needed, and at other places, we
are not using them. So fewer characters and more consistency.
Change-Id: If7a78bde85154163e4426daec493d973213e83e9
This rewrite had may backs and forths. In my git repository, it
consists of 35 commits which I cannot group or merge into reasonable
review buckets. Gerrit breaks fundamental git semantics, so I have to
squash the 35 commits into one for the review.
I'll push this not with refs/for/master, but with refs/for/next so
that we can transition after submission in a controlled fashion.
For the review, I recommend to start with looking at godoc and in
particular the many examples. After that, continue with a line-by-line
detailed review. (The big picture is hopefully as expected after
wrapping up the discussion earlier.)
Change-Id: Ib38cc46493a5139ca29d84020650929d94cac850
Bjoern Rabenstein